AP sues aggregator over “parasitic business model”

The Associated Press is making good on threats to sue content aggregators, …

The Associated Press is suing a paid news subscription company, alleging Tuesday that repackaging the wire service's news content is a "parasitic business model."

The suit (PDF) blasts the Meltwater Group of San Francisco, saying the 10-year-old company's subscription service charges a fee for "content created at the expense and through the labor of others."

Meltwater has about 18,000 customers, who pay at least $5,000 annually for searchable content Meltwater acquires by scraping the 162,000 online news sources it monitors, the AP said. Meltwater also includes a "hot off the wire" database "to attract potential customers," the AP said.

New York-based AP is demanding a federal judge block the service from continuing operation, and is seeking damages of up to $150,000 an infringement.

Meltwater, which was not immediately prepared to comment, said in a statement that the company "respects copyright and operates a complementary service that directs users to publisher websites, just like any other search engine."

The company said it was performing the services of a search engine, but customized for paying customers who want it to track stories via keywords across 190 countries in 100 languages. "We are confident that our service is compliant with U.S. copyright law, with the U.S. courts having repeatedly held that internet search is legal," the company said.

Meltwater is also accused of archiving articles as far back as 2007, and providing news "no longer freely available on the internet—either because of the original article has been removed from the internet or placed behind an archive paywall by the hosting website."

The AP, which is a news cooperative counting many of the nation's major media outlets as its members, said the suit was not an attack on aggregation blogs in general. Meltwater, according to the suit, "most notably is a closed system sold only to subscribers for a fee, and not a means of expanding public access."

And last year, the wire service settled out of court with Shepard Fairey over who owned the rights to the iconic Obama "Hope" poster. According to the settlement’s terms, the two sides agreed “to work together going forward with the Hope image and share the rights to make the posters and merchandise bearing the Hope image and to collaborate on a series of images that Fairey will create based on AP photographs.”

Most newspapers simply rehash the AP story; but they pay an agreement for the original content to be included in their site; they don't just provide a link back to AP.

So the question is... is this a glorified Google Reader; or are they scraping the content and hosting it on their own servers.

When that happens, AP can't monetize their content thus hurting their business model. If a news site gives commentary, or reporting from multiple sources; and then provides links to the original content on the originators site then that could arguably bolster AP. If they are taking their content, placing it on their own servers, and providing it for ad or subscription revenue then they are taking away APs potential revenue streams.

One thing not mentioned in the article -- "hot news" has special copyright protections above and beyond what other media have. What's fair use for a book, or magazine article, may not apply to a breaking news story.

"Meltwater is also accused of archiving articles as far back as 2007, and providing news 'no longer freely available on the internet—either because of the original article has been removed from the internet or placed behind an archive paywall by the hosting website.'"

I read that as: "Meltwater is awesome."

I don't use the site at all, but I am fucking sick of companies that publish data for FREE AND OPEN ACCESS for a month or a year and then suddenly, magically, they lock it the fuck up and throw it behind a paywall.

Strategy: sue the small fry, convince them to settle or get some precedent, then sue Google for News, profit!

Google News allows you to set up search terms for which to deliver you news. That sounds exactly like Meltwater's business model. There's a big difference though: Google doesn't charge people for it.

Even if this lawsuit does lead to a win for the AP, I don't think it has any further ramifications for Google. If it does, however, this could open a huge can of worms, since a giant chunk of the internet is based on reposting news from other sites.

For some sites (Gizmodo for example), this is their entire business model, reposting things from other sites. Whether you charge directly for the service or make money off advertising, there's not much of a difference, I suppose.

"Meltwater is also accused of archiving articles as far back as 2007, and providing news 'no longer freely available on the internet—either because of the original article has been removed from the internet or placed behind an archive paywall by the hosting website.'"

I read that as: "Meltwater is awesome."

I don't use the site at all, but I am fucking sick of companies that publish data for FREE AND OPEN ACCESS for a month or a year and then suddenly, magically, they lock it the fuck up and throw it behind a paywall.

How exactly is this unreasonable? It's how (given that nobody actually pays for newspapers any more) they can continue to make money. If we want high quality news, driven by knowledgeable reporters stationed all over the world, then it needs to be paid for. If you have a better solution, then please let us know it.

Right now, the Associated Press employs about 3700 people--most of them reporters and photographers. Those people presumably have to be paid. Now, I'm not saying the AP is the most forward looking organization on the earth--I've heard from people who work there that's certainly not the cast--but those people (a) do provide a real service and (b) do not do it for free. The AP, like most companies, needs some source of revenue to pay those people.

Now, the AP generally gets paid from two sources--advertising revenue and readership subscriptions. Maybe their clients (local newspapers, etc) get paid and the money gets funneled back to the AP, but those are still the two main revenue streams. Meltwater has deprived AP of both of them. So even if Meltwater really wins, does society really win here? There's a real possibility that the AP could go out of business, and that's not a good outcome at all. They do real work--sometimes dangerous and definitely necessary--and they desperately trying to monetize that service.

Now I don't use Google News regularly, but at the least from my limited understanding, Google News is "advertising" for the AP services--you can click through to the original article and then the AP can at least advertise to you. So Google is giving you greater access to the AP; it seems like a harder sell to sue Google. Maybe the AP thinks Google is giving away too much information, whatever. But this company deprives the AP of all sources of revenue, so it was pretty much a matter of time before they got sued.

AngelZero wrote:

"Meltwater is also accused of archiving articles as far back as 2007, and providing news 'no longer freely available on the internet—either because of the original article has been removed from the internet or placed behind an archive paywall by the hosting website.'"

I read that as: "Meltwater is awesome."

I don't use the site at all, but I am fucking sick of companies that publish data for FREE AND OPEN ACCESS for a month or a year and then suddenly, magically, they lock it the fuck up and throw it behind a paywall.

"Meltwater is also accused of archiving articles as far back as 2007, and providing news 'no longer freely available on the internet—either because of the original article has been removed from the internet or placed behind an archive paywall by the hosting website.'"

I read that as: "Meltwater is awesome."

I don't use the site at all, but I am fucking sick of companies that publish data for FREE AND OPEN ACCESS for a month or a year and then suddenly, magically, they lock it the fuck up and throw it behind a paywall.

They charge you for access to content they didn't create and don't own - how does that make them awesome?

It costs labor and money to create that content in the first place. You should be grateful that they were stupid enough to give you that information for free at all. Or remorseful since now, only the biggest publications can afford to have real reporters now. The others have to rely on interns.

I have nothing but contempt for the RIAA and MPAA but I feel a great amount of pity for the news organizations. Maybe they shot themselves in the foot but their a far more important industry than the RIAA/MPAA yet they're actually suffering now. On that note, anyone have a job for a reporter? He has multiple Pulitzer Prizes, was a Nieman Fellow and has a good disposition. His old employer decided it didn't want to pay people to report anymore - printing press releases is much cheaper than all that actual work.

I take it Ars is more interested in promoting flame-wars than educating its readers these days. It would be nice if the author had bothered to investigate and then tell us in detail what exactly Meltwater's service entails. The devil is in the details. If they're acting as a search, then the information they provide is just enough to know what an article is about, and then a link to that article. That would seem legitimate. If, on the other hand, what they're doing is "digesting" the info and providing so much of it that the user has no (or nearly no) desire to go to the actual source, then they are indeed behaving parasitically and AP has a right to be compensated.

But lacking that critical information, all this article seems to do is provide a springboard for people to grind their tired old axes.

I've read several stories recently about suing/takedown notices over copyright where after reading I have to go look at the websites (or archives if they exist) to get any idea of where I stand on it. I'm not saying you should pass judgement, but at least give us enough specifics so we can make our own.

They charge you for access to content they didn't create and don't own - how does that make them awesome?

How is it different from Lexis/Nexis?

From the article:

Quote:

The company said it was performing the services of a search engine, but customized for paying customers who want it to track stories via keywords across 190 countries in 100 languages. "We are confident that our service is compliant with U.S. copyright law, with the U.S. courts having repeatedly held that internet search is legal," the company said.

If Meltwater isn't breaking copyright laws, then why shouldn't they able to run their business?

AP isn't entitled to make money on a business model just because they say they are.

What's to stop the AP from offering essentially the same service for less money? They already have the content, why don't they offer the ability to search it and get alerts based on keywords?

The answer to that last one, by the way, is because it would hurt AP's business of selling content to newspapers. So they've locked themselves into a business model that's tied to a dying industry and now they will sue to try and keep that money flowing.

I get what they are saying. Look at the Chive, all they do is repost stuff they find elsewhere without any credit. I think that is an example of a bad aggregator, at least offer credit so I can find more content by that person.

Granted, a lot of that shit is meme's anyways, but they certainly aren't creating anything. At the same time, agencies like the AP are going to struggle if they can't adapt to an age where information flows like water.

This is the key to AP's case (and if true, could destroy Meltwater in court):

Quote:

Meltwater is also accused of archiving articles as far back as 2007, and providing news "no longer freely available on the internet—either because of the original article has been removed from the internet or placed behind an archive paywall by the hosting website."

Everything else is bluster. For example,

Quote:

Meltwater, according to the suit, "most notably is a closed system sold only to subscribers for a fee, and not a means of expanding public access."

What does AP expect? For Meltwater to do a load of hard work on their news aggregation & search system, and then make the entire system free for all to use, without placing any "value added" features behind a paywall? Or, are they saying that as long as Meltwater or similar services produce a simplified "FREE" version of their service as well as their "value added" "PRO" version, and as long as the FREE service is generating traffic of the same magnitude as the PRO version, it's all good?

My take on this is that as long as there's a FREE version of the aggregation system, and as long as the aggregator provides links & generates traffic rather than simply archiving & redistributing content without permission; there will be no problems, either with the law or with AP...

If Meltwater isn't breaking copyright laws, then why shouldn't they able to run their business?

AP isn't entitled to make money on a business model just because they say they are.

What's to stop the AP from offering essentially the same service for less money? They already have the content, why don't they offer the ability to search it and get alerts based on keywords?

The answer to that last one, by the way, is because it would hurt AP's business of selling content to newspapers. So they've locked themselves into a business model that's tied to a dying industry and now they will sue to try and keep that money flowing.

Dinosaurs die, eventually.

So, you're willing to take their word for it that they aren't violating any copyrights? Most defendants who don't immediately plea/settle tend to deny accusations. I'm not saying that I'm taking AP's word for it either - that matter is for the courts to decide.

I also never said that the news industry doesn't need to change - their current models are clearly disastrous. Besides, if environmentalist groups were around when the dinosaurs died off, you think they wouldn't have tried to intervene, right or wrong? Why wouldn't we want to protect an industry that has been tremendously beneficial for society? If it weren't for old-style muckrakers, how much more do you think governments would get away with? Even if the AP is merely throwing a temper tantrum, they're one of the last major reliable news sources that is relatively good at leaving its opinion out of the news.

Frankly, I think the news industry is worth saving, even if it's occasionally annoying. I'm not convinced that more modern and free sources are willing to do the leg-work that more traditional journalists do (eg: pour through thousands of pages of old files at various records offices for years for an article that may not even happen). I'm not saying let them sue innocent people and/or groups. I just think democracy and society in general is in deep trouble if we lose that particular dinosaur.

If Meltwater isn't breaking copyright laws, then why shouldn't they able to run their business?

AP isn't entitled to make money on a business model just because they say they are.

What's to stop the AP from offering essentially the same service for less money? They already have the content, why don't they offer the ability to search it and get alerts based on keywords?

The answer to that last one, by the way, is because it would hurt AP's business of selling content to newspapers. So they've locked themselves into a business model that's tied to a dying industry and now they will sue to try and keep that money flowing.

Dinosaurs die, eventually.

So, you're willing to take their word for it that they aren't violating any copyrights? Most defendants who don't immediately plea/settle tend to deny accusations. I'm not saying that I'm taking AP's word for it either - that matter is for the courts to decide.

I also never said that the news industry doesn't need to change - their current models are clearly disastrous. Besides, if environmentalist groups were around when the dinosaurs died off, you think they wouldn't have tried to intervene, right or wrong? Why wouldn't we want to protect an industry that has been tremendously beneficial for society? If it weren't for old-style muckrakers, how much more do you think governments would get away with? Even if the AP is merely throwing a temper tantrum, they're one of the last major reliable news sources that is relatively good at leaving its opinion out of the news.

Frankly, I think the news industry is worth saving, even if it's occasionally annoying. I'm not convinced that more modern and free sources are willing to do the leg-work that more traditional journalists do (eg: pour through thousands of pages of old files at various records offices for years for an article that may not even happen). I'm not saying let them sue innocent people and/or groups. I just think democracy and society in general is in deep trouble if we lose that particular dinosaur.

I dunno if the model is so broken it has to be held up in the courts perhaps its time for a change.

Lexis/Nexis deals with legal information. It's all content that they don't create, and they charge access for. But any law school student or journalist and they'll tell you how awesome a Lexis/Nexis subscription is.

illy-chan wrote:

So, you're willing to take their word for it that they aren't violating any copyrights? Most defendants who don't immediately plea/settle tend to deny accusations. I'm not saying that I'm taking AP's word for it either - that matter is for the courts to decide.

No. That's obviously for the courts to decide. But AP is desperately trying to justify it's place in this world, and I don't trust them not to overreach in an effort to save their model.

I take it Ars is more interested in promoting flame-wars than educating its readers these days. ... But lacking that critical information, all this article seems to do is provide a springboard for people to grind their tired old axes.

To be fair, this a Wired article and it's not like they're known for providing in-depth analysis or useful details. I still wish Ars hadn't decided to run Wired articles.

Yeah, Ars had done a good job of avoiding the horribly hyperbolic articles from Wired, and some of the Wired authors that they rerun are pretty good, but I have been disappointed with all the David Kravets stories. They don't go into much detail, and they are written in stupid inverse pyramid style, like so:* Vague introduction (at least Dave avoids confusingly clever or intentionally controversial lead-ins)* Further information without context.* The background information that was necessary to understand what you already read.* Random spattering of quotes and facts with no attempt to link with coherent narrative.That has no place outside of daily newspaper, where you have *both* space and time constraints. The former doesn't apply to the internet, and the later doesn't apply to a monthly print publication like Wired. Inverse pyramid is an idea whose time has long since passed, and needs to be buried.

This article does indeed raise many questions of fact. In fairness, there are any number of reasons that a journalistic work might be edited to accommodate a specific purpose or format. I don't know if that's the case here; not enough (any) pertinent editorial comment.

SSSOOOOoooooo, which of you budding journalists out there, (complaining about lack of facts or story depth while dismissing the AP et.al. as Pre-Cambrian), are willing to hustle on off and fill in the blanks for us. Of course your work would need to meet certain standards, the minimums of which will vary by the quality, credibility, style & reputation of the publisher.

You'll be held to a deadline of course, expected to develop relational themes & follow logical progression, maintain some semblance of sentence structure & maybe even learn a couple of really neat 'o tricks involving something called a "spell checker".

You'll get paid, however meagerly, or at LEAST until some "parasite" (look up the definition) figures out a whiz bang technique for monetizing your efforts while successfully cutting you out of the revenue stream.

I don't claim to have most of the facts, & I certainly don't have all the answers. If the answers were easy, news organizations & reporters would be rolling in that big money pit right next to the Koch Bros. Or at least once Murdoch croaks. (HEY...now THERE'S a news guy for ya!)

Opinion is easy. Thoughtful opinion requires that one exert at least a little effort, perhaps even questioning one's own assumptions, understanding & expertise. Thoughtful opinion even contributes to the depth, breadth & quality of a discussion thread.

If you want to complain & berate, bitch & belittle, your time would be much better spent learning something about the role that the Fourth Estate has played over time. Fourth Estate???? (hint: google it....if it's not too inconvenient to copy & paste. - [FULL SNARK: FULL STOP])

Compared to the articles released by their sister publication this article fails. Ars tends to write better articles with more relevant details. Wired does not and I doubt anyone expects that of them. Different audiences. It is frustrating when we come to Ars Technica and expect a particular level of quality but instead get a different level of quality, targeted at a different audience. Even in articles that we do like it is not uncommon to see more factual information presented in a more accessible way than the original article. On some aggregator/news sites it's not even worth clicking through to the actual story because the comments are more insightful and informative than the original article. If the meat of the story can be summarized in a paragraph and the rest is useless fluff and opinions rather than analysis and details there's not much reason to care about the story. The fourth estate has been bankrupt for a decade anyways. The soap box had a nice discussion about it.

I worked on a site at one point that was in the aggregation and republication business, just concerned with a specialized industry vertical. In fact, we did license some content via Lexis/Nexis as well as other content providers/producers. To archive and republish, we paid fees that would utterly amaze anyone not familiar with the industry. The licenses clearly spelled out what we could republish, how we could or could not reformat it, etc.

Let me reiterate: It was astoundingly expensive and my general impression was Lexis/Nexis was paying even more. Part of it is because there's just not a huge market for some of the content we were republishing. You might be surprised to see how much some companies charge just to republish data already available via the SEC, albeit in a more consistent format.

Lexis/Nexis deals with legal information. It's all content that they don't create, and they charge access for. But any law school student or journalist and they'll tell you how awesome a Lexis/Nexis subscription is.

illy-chan wrote:

So, you're willing to take their word for it that they aren't violating any copyrights? Most defendants who don't immediately plea/settle tend to deny accusations. I'm not saying that I'm taking AP's word for it either - that matter is for the courts to decide.

No. That's obviously for the courts to decide. But AP is desperately trying to justify it's place in this world, and I don't trust them not to overreach in an effort to save their model.

I work in a law firm that deals with Lexis/Nexis. Trust me, this is an entirely different matter with Meltwater. I suggest you rethink what you have been responding about.

I take it Ars is more interested in promoting flame-wars than educating its readers these days. It would be nice if the author had bothered to investigate and then tell us in detail what exactly Meltwater's service entails. The devil is in the details. If they're acting as a search, then the information they provide is just enough to know what an article is about, and then a link to that article. That would seem legitimate. If, on the other hand, what they're doing is "digesting" the info and providing so much of it that the user has no (or nearly no) desire to go to the actual source, then they are indeed behaving parasitically and AP has a right to be compensated.

But lacking that critical information, all this article seems to do is provide a springboard for people to grind their tired old axes.

Welcome to the metacircular social dynamic.

The key question here is, does Meltwater provide full text of the articles? If so, AP has a right to go after them. If they simply provide links back to full content, then not.

The act of making content readable for free, on a given site, does not mean that the information should be free to copy. What the public perceives as free is often anything but -- revenue is earned by advertising, for example.